Love it or loathe it. Its clearly doing its job... everyone seems to be talking about Microsoft.

The old adage about "no such thing as bad publicity" simply isn't true. If the ads have everyone talking about how shit they are, they're not doing any good.

Tell me this: Does watching this "I'm a PC" ad make you want to re-evaluate your decision to use a Mac? Because all it tells me is that a bunch of people use PCs/Windows. I already know this, 90+% of the world use Windows, showing me a bunch of people that use it is not that surprising to me. This type of tactic would only work for someone like Apple in my opinion where people might actually be surprised by the types of people who use Macs.

I'm a bit of a fan of "Are you Being Served?" and these is an episode where young mister grace (the boss) on hearing that the department is not doing well, tells Rumbold that young mister grace used to have a saying when he sold fish... "when the fish go rotten, it goes rotten at the head... so ... cut the head off!" he then asks "so, who is the head of the department?"

Rumbold (a bald middle management type with ZERO vision, but plenty of flap and bluster) then says "well, I run the department sir"

sort of all fits really.

I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

I wasn't arguing: what are you doing out of school, boy? What I said either strikes you as a good direction or not. You decide for yourself. Go ahead, let your brain have a satisfying little hate jab. Have a bottle and some ice cream. All better now?

BTW, I think the new Microsoft ads are fabulous. BTW, I bought a new iMac 24, 4Gb, Nvidia 8800 box 2 months ago, rackmounted it in a dj table and use it to mix video in live performance. I really, really like what Macs can do for me.

Microsoft gained it's monopoly not by making better products, but by people needing thier software. It's a brilliant business strategy, but the public loses because we get inferior products. Apple and Linux go by the business strategy of building a better mouse-trap, so they more innovative and their ads reflect that. Gates knows how he gained so much of the market share and now he's trying soooo hard to show that people choose to use MS. No amount of clever campaining can change what MS is.

Actually its quite good. While people will say its stupid to respond to Apple in their ads they really don't have much choice IMO. Apple is ascending in popularity and influence in the tech industry while MS seems stagnant. They should recognize this and confront it.

I agree, I think this latest "I'm a PC" ad is a lot better and is what they should of come out with in the first place. That being said, simply having a bunch of people say "I'm a PC" does nothing for Microsoft. They need to justify why a PC, or more to the point Windows, is a better product. I think the problem is Microsoft just has too much money to care, too many business manager robots, and no creative types to come up with a good message.

PC comes in from left holding a couple small windows in front of him
Mac: Hey PC! What's with the windows?
PC: I have become enlightened and realized I don't need walls!
PC straining to keep the windows held up right
Mac: Aren't you arms getting a little tired?
PC(straining): Can't... Drop... Windows
PC grunts and drops windows
Mac: Hmm, looks like your windows crashed...

PC comes in from left holding a couple small windows in front of him
Mac: Hey PC! What's with the windows?
PC: I have become enlightened and realized I don't need walls!
PC straining to keep the windows held up right
Mac: Aren't you arms getting a little tired?
PC(straining): Can't... Drop... Windows
PC grunts and drops windows
Mac: Hmm, looks like your windows crashed...

Sounds...PANEful!!

A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...

Personally, I am already tired as heck of hearing Billy G. and Microsoft drop hints about what a big deal philanthropist he is. All he has done is give away some of his ill-gotten money. It always had the smell of "rich man buys his way into heaven" IMO. It's not as if any rich person couldn't do the same thing or doesn't do the same thing. It's not as if he actually gets involved in the projects, he just has a bunch of people working for him that find things he can write cheques for.

I have way more respect for people like Jimmy Carter, who put on a hard hat and actually go build a house for someone who needs one, or all those folks that serve hot soup to street people.

There is nothing tackier than doing charity and then crowing about it. If they started making ads about what a great philanthropist Gates is it would be repulsive (at least to me).

Ok, this crosses the line for me.

That is fine to lampoon M$ and their ads, yet attacking Gates is going too far. I'm no M$ fanboy, yet here is what Bill & Melinda Gates ARE doing in the world: $16.75 Billion committed in funds around the world: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Grant...?showYear=2008

1.77B or 11% to Global Development
5.35B or 32% to USA
9.61B or 57% to Global Health

He quit M$ to help run the foundation. NOT all rich people are doing this - a quick Google search reveals that Steve Jobs shows up no where on public charitable contributions (this does not mean he doesn't give - his name doesn't show up on lists of donors).

Look, beat up the ads, that's OK. Gates Foundation IS DOING something with their money. I can't find the reference yet I believe they have stated that all the money will be granted at or before their death.

Jimmy Carter does do great work AND so does Gates. Comparing one as better than the other misses the whole point - giving back is simply giving back no matter what form it takes.

That is fine to lampoon M$ and their ads, yet attacking Gates is going too far. I'm no M$ fanboy, yet here is what Bill & Melinda Gates ARE doing in the world: $16.75 Billion committed in funds around the world: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Grant...?showYear=2008

1.77B or 11% to Global Development
5.35B or 32% to USA
9.61B or 57% to Global Health

He quit M$ to help run the foundation. NOT all rich people are doing this - a quick Google search reveals that Steve Jobs shows up no where on pubic charitable contributions (this does not mean he doesn't give - his name doesn't show up on lists of donors).

Look, beat up the ads, that's OK. Gates Foundation IS DOING something with their money. I can't find the reference yet I believe they have stated that all the money will be granted at or before their death.

Jimmy Carter does do great work AND so does Gates. Comparing one as better than the other misses the whole point - giving back is simply giving back no matter what form it takes.

Don't argue with this jacka**. Steve Jobs could take a dump on his pillow, and he'd think it was a mint.

Back on the ads, Apple is successful because they have identified the pain many Windows users have faced and they lampoon the image long branded to the PC. This bridges a connection with the audience - you understand my pain.

The new "I'm a PC" ads by M$ don't make a connection for all the reasons previously given by the smart posts before this one.

The shift to Intel by Apple appears smarter and smarter - I recall hearing a Genius Bar associate say that Windows runs better on Apple than it does on the PC. Won't that be in an interesting avenue to explore as Apple goes forward.

Not sure if its good or crap, starting to think they shouldn't really bother with adverts. Apples share of the market may be growing and Firefox may be taking the browser market from IE, but then its not like they really make any money from the browser market and Apple's never going to take over windows. If there was a chance then Microsoft would just stop making Office for the mac and their growth would be slowed.

Plus I recall reading a lot of articles mentioning iPOD sales helping Mac sales and the same for the iPhone. Problem Apple has though is at some point people will get board of a click wheel and the iPOD will be out of fashion. As for the iPhone they've based the device around a fixed size screen with lots of apps made for that screen. People get board of products and just want something new but what can apple deliver with these fixed things in place.

That is fine to lampoon M$ and their ads, yet attacking Gates is going too far. I'm no M$ fanboy, yet here is what Bill & Melinda Gates ARE doing in the world: $16.75 Billion committed in funds around the world: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Grant...?showYear=2008

1.77B or 11% to Global Development
5.35B or 32% to USA
9.61B or 57% to Global Health

He quit M$ to help run the foundation. NOT all rich people are doing this - a quick Google search reveals that Steve Jobs shows up no where on pubic charitable contributions (this does not mean he doesn't give - his name doesn't show up on lists of donors).

Look, beat up the ads, that's OK. Gates Foundation IS DOING something with their money. I can't find the reference yet I believe they have stated that all the money will be granted at or before their death.

Jimmy Carter does do great work AND so does Gates. Comparing one as better than the other misses the whole point - giving back is simply giving back no matter what form it takes.

I agree with you. The Gates Foundation will turn Bill Gates into one of the great philanthropic charity givers of our century, much like the robber baron-cum-philanthropist John D. Rockefeller. As an author said about Rockefeller, "...his good side was every bit as good as his bad side was bad."

That is fine to lampoon M$ and their ads, yet attacking Gates is going too far. I'm no M$ fanboy, yet here is what Bill & Melinda Gates ARE doing in the world: $16.75 Billion committed in funds around the world: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Grant...?showYear=2008

1.77B or 11% to Global Development
5.35B or 32% to USA
9.61B or 57% to Global Health

He quit M$ to help run the foundation. NOT all rich people are doing this - a quick Google search reveals that Steve Jobs shows up no where on pubic charitable contributions (this does not mean he doesn't give - his name doesn't show up on lists of donors).

Look, beat up the ads, that's OK. Gates Foundation IS DOING something with their money. I can't find the reference yet I believe they have stated that all the money will be granted at or before their death.

Jimmy Carter does do great work AND so does Gates. Comparing one as better than the other misses the whole point - giving back is simply giving back no matter what form it takes.

I think a lot of people will look at this as the end justifying the means. Should we not look at past transgressions and the people and companying that were destroyed by MS' anti-competitive tactics, or should we sweep all that under the rug and say, "Well, I guess it's okay since he's doing the world now."? Is this some sort of perverted Robin Hood who is rich and powerful but steals from the unfortunate just to give back years later to the even more unfortunate?

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I've said it before and I'll say it again, oh boy, this is going to be one of a long and funny crash to oblivion to watch.
MS don't even need to try to be funny in their ads. Their complete fail at anything they try just shows how desperate is their cause and how doubtless is their fall.

Not to say that there isn't a winner in the commercial industry. Right, Crispin Porter + Bogusky ?

When you're the big kid, and the little kid starts taunting you, the best thing you can do is not respond. Otherwise you empower the little kid.

MS is the big kid. They have 90% of the market. What do they care if Apple gets 1% more global marketshare? Why not just ignore Apple's ads? Why bother to respond? For what?

It doesn't feel like business -- it feels like a personal thing. Ballmer and Gates are really mad that they are being portrayed as John Hodgemans. It's about personal ego.

Best response: nothing.

Second best: make it funny! Show the John Hodgeman-like character running around being a superhero: helping teachers teach. Helping engineers solve real world problems. Playing kick ass games. Being compatible with the world. Speaking a jillion languages. Meanwhile a guy who looks like the "I'm a Mac" dude is shown looking cool, kicking on the sofa, doing nothing substantial.

To me the I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC commercials show Long and Hodgman as the personification of the actual hardware not as users, not belonging a group. So when PC says, "I'm a PC" it really means "I AM a PC". It's about how your experience using a Mac is better because your computer won't be besieged by all the crap you have to deal with on windows.

After watching the commercial this is the impression I'm left with: "I'm a PC rawwwrrr!! I wear glasses!!!! and have a beard rawwwwrr!!!"

I anticipate this will have zero impact on how successful Apple's campaign is.

I couldn't agree more! These are my thoughts about it exactly. It says nothing about the Microsoft brand just a lot of everyday people saying they are a "PC". I think it would have been more effective if these people said "I use a PC" as if to say it's not as bad as Apple would have you believe when they thumb down the PC experience. Just my 2 cents.

Personally, I am already tired as heck of hearing Billy G. and Microsoft drop hints about what a big deal philanthropist he is. All he has done is give away some of his ill-gotten money. It always had the smell of "rich man buys his way into heaven" IMO. It's not as if any rich person couldn't do the same thing or doesn't do the same thing. It's not as if he actually gets involved in the projects, he just has a bunch of people working for him that find things he can write cheques for.

I have way more respect for people like Jimmy Carter, who put on a hard hat and actually go build a house for someone who needs one, or all those folks that serve hot soup to street people.

There is nothing tackier than doing charity and then crowing about it. If they started making ads about what a great philanthropist Gates is it would be repulsive (at least to me).

Gates has also attracted lots of Warren Buffet's (without his name on the foundation) money to the cause. Gate stifled innovation in business, but this kind of change the world giving needs to be encouraged. So again, I think Gates should exploit this good guy attribute in his ads (with a percentage of sales to the cause). Where's Jobs contribution (other then his great products)?

I think a lot of people will look at this as the end justifying the means. Should we not look at past transgressions and the people and companying that were destroyed by MS' anti-competitive tactics, or should we sweep all that under the rug and say, "Well, I guess it's okay since he's doing the world now."? Is this some sort of perverted Robin Hood who is rich and powerful but steals from the unfortunate just to give back years later to the even more unfortunate?

I think you (and a couple of others) may be missing the point that Gates did not have to spend a dime of his money on these 'ends.'

When you're the big kid, and the little kid starts taunting you, the best thing you can do is not respond. Otherwise you empower the little kid.

MS is the big kid. They have 90% of the market. What do they care if Apple gets 1% more global marketshare? Why not just ignore Apple's ads? Why bother to respond? For what?

It doesn't feel like business -- it feels like a personal thing. Ballmer and Gates are really mad that they are being portrayed as John Hodgemans. It's about personal ego.

Best response: nothing.

Second best: make it funny! Show the John Hodgeman-like character running around being a superhero: helping teachers teach. Helping engineers solve real world problems. Playing kick ass games. Being compatible with the world. Speaking a jillion languages. Meanwhile a guy who looks like the "I'm a Mac" dude is shown looking cool, kicking on the sofa, doing nothing substantial.

Well that depends on if you think in the future the little kid could be a problem. I mean, maybe in 6th grade he's just some little goober but then you see his parents are both 6'4" and you start to wonder if he too could get that big.

What surprises me most is all the chatter of how out of touch Microsoft is based on this flubbed ad campaign. i still look back and laugh uproariously about the MSN commercials a few years back where they had a huge fat fellow squeezed barely into a butterfly outfit supposedly suggesting the dual themes of diversity and the nimble,graceful, elegant beauty of the monolithic monopoly Microsoft -- i guess. Oh yeah, that clearly conjured images to me of the evil empire as an ethereal entity of nature that i wanted to get onboard with to accomplish what i needed and wanted to do.

When people are "upgrading" from Vista to XP, All i can imagine is Mr P. C. Hodgeman being asked by Boy Mac, What are you doing PC?"

Good point you make that all Apple have to do to make these adverts irrelevant and incomprehensible is to suspend MAC vs PC ads for a while.

I find it hard to identify the target audience of the PC ads. If it is normal people, then those people generally just go to their local store or pc website and order one. Raising awareness of the PC does nothing to encourage them to do so.

The kind of people that Macs appeal to only need to become aware of Macs and have their curiosity peaked - so advertising works well. And once they've tried the goods, PC advertising won't convert them back.

Apple should save their money for a while and just concentrate their efforts on maintaining their standards. And, judging by MobileMe, etc, etc this summer, that is where they are most needed.

( I am speaking as a long time Windows user, who is strongly considering my first Mac).

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

a quick Google search reveals that Steve Jobs shows up no where on pubic charitable contributions (this does not mean he doesn't give - his name doesn't show up on lists of donors).

Pubic charity? You've been watching Dirty Sanchez I think.

Charity is one thing but Microsoft tried to edge in on the laptops for poorer countries alongside Linux. Not all charitable deeds are pure. If they cement their position among a new generation of users, they will be there for generations to come.

I'm not going to make assumptions about their personal motives but you can't make the same assumptions that they are good people because of the charity.

If I had a few billion, I would help people too but it doesn't mean I'm any nicer than I am now. I would just know that it's far more than I could ever need in my entire lifetime. Real charity is where you give beyond your comfort zone. If Bill Gates had an average job and still went out of his way to support the poor then that's charitable. If he still goes home a billionaire then it's far less meaningful.

What do they care if Apple gets 1% more global marketshare? Why not just ignore Apple's ads? Why bother to respond? For what?

As the saying goes:

"Windows is a 32-bit extension to a 16-bit graphical shell for an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor by a 2-bit company that cant stand 1 bit of competition."

I think they are preparing for the storm. It seems insignificant now but people are switching to and liking Macs. With price drops, and further innovative products like the touch tablet, Microsoft and the PC industry will suffer some losses. Since the industry is already having such growth problems, losing out to Apple in both hardware and software sales could be damaging.

Except for the first shot of the Hodgman ripoff, I can't imagine that bit making an impression other than "MS ripped off Apple", but I guess it's necessary to put the spot in context. I also think the inclusion of celebrities takes away from the "regular guy" vibe.

But even though it's better than the awful ads they started with, I don't really see it making much of a dent in sales at all.

I agree with you. The Gates Foundation will turn Bill Gates into one of the great philanthropic charity givers of our century, much like the robber baron-cum-philanthropist John D. Rockefeller. As an author said about Rockefeller, "...his good side was every bit as good as his bad side was bad."

Interesting comparison. Both were monopolists but both drove down prices for the end user. The price of kerosene dropped by 80% over the lifetime of Standard Oil. The price for operating systems and software has dropped about as much. At least if you were used to paying for Unix software and operating systems anyway.

Both were ruthless but offered competitors decent buyout offers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by solipsism

I think a lot of people will look at this as the end justifying the means. Should we not look at past transgressions and the people and companying that were destroyed by MS' anti-competitive tactics, or should we sweep all that under the rug and say, "Well, I guess it's okay since he's doing the world now."? Is this some sort of perverted Robin Hood who is rich and powerful but steals from the unfortunate just to give back years later to the even more unfortunate?

The end users benefitted from Gates and Rockefeller. How many companies were "destroyed" by MS vs purchased and made their owners rich?

Netscape screwed the pooch by a) saying they were going to start charging for their browser and b) letting themselves fall behind despite a huge initial advantage. If they hadn't done A, I doubt MS would have gotten the traction it did with explorer.

Sun screwed the pooch by a) charging too damn much for Solaris X86 and b) not fixing the Unix desktop when they had the frigging chance. By charging $700 for Solaris X86 they INSURED that NT would get a foothold in the light server/workstation market. By screwing up the desktop they INSURED unix would never get desktop market share (meaning zero pressure on Windows) until...OS X.

They had OPENSTEP RIGHT FRIGGING THERE IN 1993. They had Solaris X86 RIGHT FRIGGING THERE IN 1993. They could have gotten OPENSTEP Solaris/X86 done by 1995 and gone toe to toe against Windows NT 3.5.1 in the workstation and server markets with something very much like OS X. Beautiful intuitive UI on top of a rock solid Unix.

They might not have won, but they might have kept total MS domination at bay.

Charity is one thing but Microsoft tried to edge in on the laptops for poorer countries alongside Linux.

So? It should have been an option from the get go since that what many of the education ministers want ANYWAY. Hence OLPC moving to Windows XP to the lamentation of freetards everywhere.

Quote:

Not all charitable deeds are pure. If they cement their position among a new generation of users, they will be there for generations to come.

The same can be said of the FSF. They are no less predatory and proprietary. Just vastly less successful.

Quote:

As the saying goes:

"Windows is a 32-bit extension to a 16-bit graphical shell for an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor by a 2-bit company that can’t stand 1 bit of competition."

I think they are preparing for the storm.

They have always been preparing for the storm. They've been one of the most paranoid companies ever. That's partly why they've done so many questionable things.

They never never wanted to become IBM or Sun or Dec or any number of former computer giants that are shadows of what they once were.

Quote:

It seems insignificant now but people are switching to and liking Macs. With price drops, and further innovative products like the touch tablet, Microsoft and the PC industry will suffer some losses. Since the industry is already having such growth problems, losing out to Apple in both hardware and software sales could be damaging.

From their high point of total dominance there was nowhere to GO but down.